GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURNAGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

transfer pricing addition is to be made on individual basis in the particular transaction, if warranted, on the benchmarking analysis undertaken of that particular transaction alone by ignoring the other Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., transactions benchmarked separately. Since the international transaction of payment of the RSC for the year has been benchmarked by the assessee on separate basis

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

transfer pricing addition is to be made on individual basis in the particular transaction, if warranted, on the benchmarking analysis undertaken of that particular transaction alone by ignoring the other Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., transactions benchmarked separately. Since the international transaction of payment of the RSC for the year has been benchmarked by the assessee on separate basis

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 143(3). In large number of cases we find that the above distinction is not kept in mind by the Assessing Officer. It is for this reason that we have spelt out the difference between the regular assessment and the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B.” 22. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also referred to following decisions wherein

VENTURA INDIA PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TP-2)2, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 234B of the Act, as applicable, on account of unanticipated additions made to the total income of the Assessee on account of transfer pricing adjustment amounting to INR 7,90,08,000. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend one or more of the above Grounds of Appeal at any time before

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

pricing report obtained and the transfer\npricing documentation maintained.”\n13. On going through the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional\nHigh Court and applying the ratio laid down therein on the\nfacts of the present case, we find that the same are squarely\napplicable and, therefore, we hold that 1d. DRP's directions\nconfirming the action of TPO making the upward

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

151 TTJ 114 wherein it was provided that\nthe deduction cannot be claimed under section 10A of the Act\nif the return of income has not been filed within the time\nspecified under section 139(1) of the Act. But undeniably the\nassessee has not claimed any deduction under section 10A of\nthe Act. Therefore, we are of the view

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP ,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

151 taxmann.com 493 (Surat-Trib.)\n8\nPrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vaishnodevi Refoils\n& Solvex [2018] 96 taxman.com 469 (SC)\n9\nPrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Vs. Vaishnodevi\nRefoils & Solvex [2018] 89 taxmann.com 80 (Gujarat)\n10\nG.L. Foods Vs. Income Tax Officer, Range-IV (4) [2011] 16\ntaxman.com 271 (Lucknow)\n9. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative

RAJKAMAL STONE METAL WORKS,AMBEGAON KHURD, DIST. PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

price by passing necessary journal entries. 5. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments of the assessee. He noted that the assessee firm and the sister concern has purchased the lands for business purpose. However, as no business was carried on in these lands, the same was transferred to the partners which amounts to a transfer resulting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act for determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of the international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 30.01.2014 passed u/s 92CA of the Act concluded that adjustment of Rs.23,41,57,183/- was required to be made to the ALP determined by the assessee in respect of international transactions entered

SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act for determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of the international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 30.01.2014 passed u/s 92CA of the Act concluded that adjustment of Rs.23,41,57,183/- was required to be made to the ALP determined by the assessee in respect of international transactions entered

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act for determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of the international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 30.01.2014 passed u/s 92CA of the Act concluded that adjustment of Rs.23,41,57,183/- was required to be made to the ALP determined by the assessee in respect of international transactions entered

M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act for determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of the international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 30.01.2014 passed u/s 92CA of the Act concluded that adjustment of Rs.23,41,57,183/- was required to be made to the ALP determined by the assessee in respect of international transactions entered

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

price bargained for. Nor has it any necessary reference to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer. The ratio of this decision was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. [1973] 87 ITR 407. Therefore, the legal position that emerges from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

price bargained for. Nor has it any necessary reference to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer. The ratio of this decision was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. [1973] 87 ITR 407. Therefore, the legal position that emerges from

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

151(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further contended that there was tangible material before him to entertain a prima facie belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The said belief was based on form No.3CEB of Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd., the agreement between the assessee and Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd. and the assessment orders passed

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

151(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further contended that there was tangible material before him to entertain a prima facie belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The said belief was based on form No.3CEB of Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd., the agreement between the assessee and Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd. and the assessment orders passed

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer about the amalgamation between SPENI and SPNI under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act effective from 1 April 2015 and that the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded to pass the assessment order against a non-existent entity. The Tribunal has in fact observed that apart from the first communication dated 02 January 2017, there

M/S. OCWEN FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2520/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Ocwen Financial Solutions Private Limited. Pritech Park, Block-12, Unit-2, 5B & 6A Floors, Bellandur Village, Sarjapur, Marathahalli Ring Road, Bangalore-560 103. Pan : Aaaco3764E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

151 of the paper book, it is stated that description of product or service is Telephone Call Center services. The statement of profit and loss account enclosed at Page 152 of the paper book wherein revenue from sale of products is Nil and revenue is generated only from sale of service which is very much evident. Similarly at Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

transfer pricing adjustment. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidenal of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue